The bomb itself was unlikely to be particularly advanced, according to British FM Philip Hammond, who says that the working theory right now is a simple timer to set off the explosive payload. With a high-end explosive, likely only a couple of pounds would be needed.

ISIS in the Sinai Peninsula is known to have used C4 in previous bombing attacks, and the Egyptian military has at times recovered caches of the explosive in raids against militant compounds. C4 is described as readily available to buy across the Sinai Peninsula, and ISIS has shown some capacity of making their own.

US and British officials are expressing annoyance at not having been invited to directly participate in the investigation with Russia and Egypt, and warn that they may never be given enough access to independently determine exactly what happened.

Author: Jason Ditz

Given that there is not a whole lot of visible bomb damage in the parts that have been found and photographed it's safe to say that not a whole lot of explosives were used. But they've talked about a bomb in the cargo, does the cargo bay reach that far back? Perhaps some maintenance type crew was involved.

Michael Kenny

It's a bit late to continue trying to claim it was faulty maintenance! Even Putin is no longer claiming that! A charter flight wouldn't normally carry cargo and, as far as I know, the hold does indeed go as far back as the point where the plane broke in two.

Rightster

Putin never claimed it was faulty maintenance; the Egyptians came up with that all by themselves.

Rightser

A C4 explosive wouldn't have had to large enough t to be classified as "cargo"; it could have been in a piece of luggage, or any other place requiring a small space.

RickR30

That's the question, does the cargo/luggage bay reach that far back. From the pictures it doesn't look like there would be any space below the horizontal stabilizers.

Rightster

The "bomb" could have been placed by a maintenance crew in a strategic location NOT in the cargo/luggage bay, or it could have been carried on by an unwitting (or witting) passenger. Also, luggage is "cargo" Although the aircraft appears to have split, it doesn't mean at all that the bomb would have had to have been placed in the cargo/luggage bay.

Valerianus

"US officials, carrying out their own investigation into the bombing of a Russian Metrojet in the Sinai Peninsula despite not having access to the crash site or any of the direct evidence . . ."

These US officials are undoubtedly using their vaunted social media informants and otherwise crowd-sourcing the investigation to produce these amazing insights.

Joe Hill

Or maybe they have direct knowledge of the attack because they helped organize it. Uncle Sam has attacked other passenger jets – the US Navy attack on an Iranian plane comes to mind.

Michael Kenny

The attack on the Iranian jet was actually an accident. They mistook it for a fighter. Stupid, but no more stupid than Putin's mercenaries accidentally firing off a rocket that brought down the malaysian airliner or the Egyptian military firing off the rocket that just missed the British airliner.

Rightster

Sure – whenever we do something it's an "accident", but when anyone else does it, it's never an accident. Bombing hospitals, droning funeral processions or wedding ceremonies for example – all accidents!

Valerianus

Yes, it is a distinct possibility that the US or one of its regional allies shot the Russian A321 down. Interesting that you mention the Iranian airliner shot down in 1988. When the US cruiser shot it down, the crew behaved in such a way as to point to a deliberate desire to open fire, regardless of other information. I have always regarded it as cold-blooded revenge for the hostage business, and I have never bought either the official line that the Iranian A300 was spamming an Iranian F-14 transponder code, or even the mildly revisionist line that the crew simply panicked under the stress of being in hostilities. The captain of the USS Vincennes was widely regarded by his fellow officers as being trigger-happy, and his crew followed suit. The ship was called "Robocruiser" because it consistently exceeded the rules of engagement in exercises.

curmudgeonvt

It's more likely the "US officials" received an email from Moshe Ya'alon telling them exactly what it was that brought the plane down because, well, because they know what brought the plane down.

Michael Kenny

If you know who Moshe Ya'alon is and can spell his name correctly, you must be very well "in" with those people!

Valerianus

You are correct, of course. 😉

greg

The only people on earth who believe anything the US says are most Americans

Michael Kenny

Americans are not as stupid as the elitist mentality that prevails on the American internet would have us believe. I speak from experience!

EME

The USG's so-called investigation is bogus, like it's investigation
into 9/11 – which was a Zionist/CIA scam.

Michael Kenny

Of course, when the US allied itself to al-Qaeda in Syria, the US government suddenly became a paragon of truth in regard to 9/11! If it suits the pre-ordained conclusion …

Michael Kenny

International civli aviation practice is that a crash is investigated by the country in which it occurred (Egypt), the country in which the plane was registered (Russia) and the country in which the plane was built (France and Germany), soemtimes with the addition of countries whose citizens were on board the plane. In this case, there were a handful of Ukrainian and Belarusian citiznes on board, probably people with their permanent residence in Russia. There's thus no reason for the US or Britain to be invited to join in and will be able to obtain any "inside" information they want from the French or the Germans. If it had been a Boeing, the US would, of course, have automatically been invited to participate. Of course, all this talk of "annoyance" may just be the now classic "NATO is divided" propaganda line.

Bianca

What arrogance. They are "annoyed". Really? As if they need to have their noses into every affair that happens across four corners of the world. No wonder our economy is shriveling. German and French are involved as they are the makers of Airbus. Russia and Egypt have their own investigative capabilities. So, what is the "annoyance" all about? As this does involve people who had the access to the plane, the investigation does have some leads. Also, it is advisable not to have too much experts having their hands on the evidence. This more likely then not causes political problems. It is better keeping it among parties that have a true stake in identifying the perpetrator. Or perhaps, even more valuable, identifying links to those that issued order. __This is not a case of Malaysian aircraft that flew into an active shooting warzone, in which only one week prior to the downing of Malaysian aircraft, fourteen various flying object have been shot down. From military bomber, to transport planes and helicopters. In this case, a deliberate act of terrorism occurred. Any link to the funding source of those that planned the act, will be significant progress in FINALLY identifying the financiers of terrorism. It will be better for US and UK not to be involved — to stay as far away from any smoking gun as possible. It is high time for tackling all these terrorist nonsense at its source. Ideological, political, financial and logistical support — time to NAME, SHAME and BLAME. If US and UK are itching for something to do — here is a chance.

musings

Although because of many of his statements, I am not a supporter of Trump for President, I have to say he took the right attitude to Putin in Syria. But when he said so in the debate, JEB Bush took him to task for being tolerant of another force in the Mideast when the US supremacy is what he thinks we should stand for.

Bush went on to the usual sort of supremacist contradiction – which was to say that while we would not be the world's policeman, we should be the leader. Chew on that one. The leader who does not want to police, but will not let anyone else take such a role for one of their allies. Of course that's hogwash.

In reality, sharing power is a threat – and not sticking your nose in where it isn't wanted can only mean that regime change to someone who will kowtow is what will be on order with the likes of another Bush in the White House. So in that statement, I found Trump to be reasonably sensible – although perhaps more accommodating to Putin than necessary, if only to counterbalance the people who would like to clean his clock, whether or not it starts WWIII. I like a bromance to begin a little slower – then it has legs. Reagan and Gorby worked pretty well, but Reagan played hard to get.

Farflungstar

"despite not having access to the crash site or any of the direct evidence"